Richard III, King of England
- Thread starter isabella
- Start date
Tree
WIP (as usual). POD: Henry VI of England died in 1449 and Richard of York became King of England
Richard III, King of England (b. 1411)* married Cecily Neville (b. 1415) in 1429
Richard III, King of England (b. 1411)* married Cecily Neville (b. 1415) in 1429
- Anne (b. 1439) married Henry Holland, Duke of Exeter (b. 1430) in 1447 with issue
- Henry of York (1441)
- Edward IV, King of England (b. 1442) married Madeleine of France (b. 1443) in 1458 with issue
- Edmund, Duke of York (b. 1443) married a) Marie of Brittany (1444-1471) in 1460 b) Margaret of Scotland (b. 1456) in 1472 with issue by both
- Elizabeth (b. 1444) married Gaston of Foix, King of Navarre (b. 1445) in 1461 with issue
- Margaret (b. 1446) married Alfonso V, King of Portugal (b. 1432) in 1462 without issue
- William, Duke of Clarence (b. 1447) married Margaret Beaufort (b. 1443) in 1452 with issue
- John, Duke of Bedford (b. 1448) married Isabella Neville, Countess of Warwick (b. 1451)
- George (1449-1452)
- Cecily (b. 1450) married Charles I, King of Lorraine (b. 1433) in 1468 as third wife with issue
- Richard, Duke of Gloucester (b. 1452) married Anne Neville, Countess of Salisbury (b. 1456)
- Catherine (b. 1453) married Francis II, Duke of Brittany (b. 1435) in 1471 as second wife with issue
- Ursula (1455-1457
Last edited:
Suffolk will fall as OTL, while Somerset would NEVER be able to get close to his OTL power (as Suffolk was still Henry VI’s favorite here)
Jonathan1997
Banned
Richard III by have Somerset head cut of for his failures in France but with Henry Vi dying that by be butterflies away. Also with a new king that is mentally stable and committed to war the wars would mostly escalate.
Jonathan1997
Banned
It makes me wonder if the king of France captured king Richard iii and had him beheaded but that would not happen if it did the war would turn into one off annihilation.
Jonathan1997
Banned
I now just think it's an interesting story possibility but very unrealistic he a king did that to another dynasty it would be like game of thrones on steroids.
You don't kill an anointed king which is your prisoner. Killing him in combat, is a possibility, dead by wounds or malady in prison, is one other, but outright execution is not in thectime mentality. (Corradino of Svevia was not a crowned king only a pretender when he was executed)
My money, sadly, is on Somerset becoming King Edmund I or a long and bloody civil war if Henry dies in 1449. By 1452, I think it's York's to lose.
I think who Suffolk (who is the warden and future father-in-law of Margaret Beaufort) is hated enough to consign the crown to Richard of York at this point as any supporter of Somerset would need not only to convalidate the Beaufort claim but also discard Margaret’s seniority on it
Maybe Suffolk and Somerset get into infighting, over who should become King/Queen, with Somerset pushing himself forward as the next candidate, while Suffolk presses his ward, Margaret’s claim, which allows York to sneak in and seize the crown?
Alternatively Edmund could die around the same time as Henry VI.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they did recognise it in private. There were also a handful of invidicuals who actually acknowledged the Beaufort claim as valid, namely Suffolk himself (if Parliament is to be believed).
Children have been set beside before in similar scenarios, namely the Earl of March following Richard II’s abdication. She could also be married to Henry Beaufort to unite the claims.
Sort of, neither is so popular and York‘s claim is the most convincing/less contestable so with the other faction split in two, the Yorkist (who still include many future Lancastrians) would get the crown for their candidate
Suffolk is the bigger problem right now (and is not like Somerset was so popular in any case, specially in the Commons)
Yes. But likely most of them acknowledged it for giving the crown to Margaret (and Suffolk’s own son) not to Somerset,
Margaret Beaufort was engaged to the son of Suffolk, who naturally want the crown for his son not gifting it to Somerset‘s son
I had chosen that year because Somerset had not yet enough power for taking the Crown while Suffolk was way too much hated and close to his OTL fall for getting it (and Somerset also was in France failing to get any result in that timeframe so I doubt he would be able to make a successful bid for the crown).
My plan was having Henry VI’s dying just after Somerset let Charles VII’s taking Rouen without any kind of siege (that mean also who the young Anne Beauchamp is dead only few months earlier and so the dispute over the Warwick inheritance is in full swing )
Last edited:
It is a moment of maximum opportunity for York. He didn't yet have much support in parliament, but you're right that at this exact moment the field is so wide open that he may just get it anyway.
It would put him in a particularly weak position to begin his reign. No major allies in the peerage, no well of support in the commons, and two possible (if unpopular) contenders circling around him. It may end up being a Henry IV-like reign with constant rebellion from every corner.
Warwick has received his wife’s inheritance and Salisbury also would support him (and they were not minor figures) plus both Suffolk and Somerset are way too much unpopular for being able to get the crown (and both would soon lose their offices at court and is not unlikely who both would be tried for their mismanagements unlike OTL were Henry VI was forced to give up on Suffolk but saved Somerset).
York would get the Crown because he has a very strong claim but also because he is the leader of the party who oppose to Suffolk and Somerset (who right now are public enemies for their mismanagements amd the other viable candidates)
I don't understand how somerset could claim the crown at all. aiui since 1406/1407 it had been established that the beauforts did not have a right to the throne.
though of course there is always conquest, pure blood, sweat, and muscle...
Not exactly. The big issue with the 1406 exclusion is that it was made through a Letters Patent, while the Beauforts were legitimised through an Act of Parliament. There is no precedent/proper answer to which overrules which.
David Starkey claims a Letters Patent cannot supersede an act of Parliament, which would mean the Beauforts had a valid claim. However, if one believes the Letter Patents take precedence then the Beauforts had no claim. So there is no right answer as to whether the Beauforts had a valid claim or not.